Headroomgate
Good

Reports

Inspection carried out on 13 July 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 13 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Headroomgate is registered to provide 24 hour care for up to 19 people. The home is situated close to St Annes town centre and is a large corner property with garden and paved areas around the building. There are three floors, two of which have lift access, two lounges and dining areas.

Some bedrooms have en-suite facilities. At the time of our inspection, 18 people lived at the home.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in May 2016, we found the provider was not meeting the requirements of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches related to dignity and respect, and safe care and treatment. Following that inspection, the provider sent us an action plan which told us how they planned to make improvements for people who used the service. During this inspection, we checked to see what improvements had been made. We found the provider had made positive changes and the service was now meeting legal requirements.

Environmental risks and risks to individuals were assessed and measures put in place to reduce or remove them, in order for care and support to be provided safely. Sufficient information was available to guide staff on how to support people safely.

We saw staff used safe systems when administering medicines. Medicines were safely and appropriately stored and secured safely when not in use. We checked how staff stored and stock checked controlled drugs. We noted this followed current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

We found staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe. There was an appropriate skill mix of staff to ensure the needs of people who lived at the home were met.

Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training and understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure.

People told us they were involved in planning their care and had discussed and consented to their care. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems within the home supported this practice.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw staff responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

Comments we received demonstrated people were satisfied with their care. The management and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people who lived at the home.

Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people needed. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

Download full report

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 11 & 16 May 2016 and was unannounced.

Headroomgate Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 19 people who have nursing needs. The home is situated close to St Annes town centre and is a large corner property with garden and paved areas around the building. There are three floors, two of which have lift access, two lounges and dining areas. Some bedrooms have an en-suite facilities.

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered with the Commission on 31/07/2015.

At the time of the inspection there were 18 people who used the service.

A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of the inspection the manager’s registration with the Commission had been cancelled. We were advised that the provider was planning to appoint a new manager who would be put forward for registration following their appointment. In the interim, the previously registered manager was continuing to oversee the day to day running of the service.

Risks to the health, safety and wellbeing of people who used the service were assessed and care plans were developed to provide staff with guidance about how to support people safely. These included moving and handling care plans. We found that all staff had received training in safe moving and handling. However, we observed two staff members, on two separate occasions, use moving and handling techniques which were not in accordance with the person’s care plan guidance or general good practice.

People we talked with spoke highly of care workers who they described as ‘kind’ and ‘caring’. People felt they were cared for in a manner that promoted their privacy and dignity. However, we observed that not all care workers were mindful of respecting people’s privacy and dignity at all times.

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were in place for each person who used the service. However, not all those viewed contained person centred information. We made a recommendation that all PEEPs be reviewed to ensure they provide individualised guidance about the support each person would require to evacuate the home in an emergency.

There were generally safe systems in place to manage people’s medicines. This helped to protect their health and wellbeing. However, we made a recommendation that information included in records relating to medicines administration be improved to help ensure people get their medicines at the correct times.

Some good examples of person centred care planning were seen. However, other examples were found where more detailed information in care plans would have been beneficial. We made a recommendation about this.

There was a training programme in place to help equip staff with the skills to carry out their roles effectively. However, in light of some of our observations, we made a recommendation that competence assessments, particularly in relation to moving and handling, be reviewed.

There were clear recruitment procedures in place, which were generally followed to help protect the safety and wellbeing of people who used the service. However, we made a recommendation that the recording of recruitment procedures be reviewed to ensure a clear audit trail was in place.

The feedback received about the standard and variety of food provided was variable. Some people did not feel that current menus offered a nutritionally balanced diet and not all care staff were able to confirm that people were provided with choices about what they ate. We made a recommendation that the provision of meals and menu planning be reviewed to ensure people’s individual needs and preferences are met.

Inspection ratings

We rate most services according to how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led they are, using four levels:

Outstanding – the service is performing exceptionally well.

Good – the service is performing well and meeting our expectations.

Requires improvement – the service isn't performing as well as it should and we have told the service how it must improve.

Inadequate – the service is performing badly and we've taken enforcement action against the provider of the service.

No rating/under appeal/rating suspended – there are some services which we can’t rate, while some might be under appeal from the provider. Suspended ratings are being reviewed by us and will be published soon.

Ticks and crosses

We don't rate every type of service. For services we haven't rated we use ticks and crosses to show whether we've asked them to take further action or taken enforcement action against them.

There's no need for the service to take further action. If this service has not had a CQC inspection since it registered with us, our judgement may be based on our assessment of declarations and evidence supplied by the service.

The service must make improvements.

At least one standard in this area was not being met when we inspected the service and we have taken enforcement action.